Day 7: What the jury won't hear

Following early morning testimony from a handwriting expert who concluded that Eric Abshire forged his then-fiancée's signature on a million-dollar vehicle insurance policy, day seven of the first-degree murder trial was more about testimony the jury won't be allowed to hear.

"Did you ever have sexual relations with Mr. Abshire?" Orange County Commonwealth's Attorney Diana Wheeler asked witness Amanda Morris. The query prompted Abshire's attorney, Charles Weber, to immediately object, and, without delay, Judge Daniel Bouton sent jurors from the courtroom. Then he allowed prosecutors to elicit Morris' testimony, which included her account of having sex with the 36-year-old dump truck driver in the month before his May 28, 2006, wedding and again just three days after Justine Swartz Abshire's mysterious death, even before her funeral.

"He called and came over," explained Morris of the pre-funeral sexual encounter. A tall brunette, she once worked at Wet Seal, a boutique offering "cute teen clothing" in Fashion Square Mall and was then known as Amanda Leathers. She testified she was dating Abshire's close friend and dump-truck business partner, and that the tryst with Abshire was a factor in the end of her relationship.

"He was a little upset," Morris said of Abshire, testifying that while she could tell he had been drinking when he arrived at her house, "he wasn't drunk." Morris also recalled being present when Abshire revealed on the day of Justine's death that he possessed naked photos of a female acquaintance. She testified that he ripped up the photos "so people wouldn't find out and make it look bad on him."

Prosecutors hoped to use Morris' account to portray Abshire as something other than the loving and grieving husband he has professed to be.

"It shows he wasn't too distraught," argued Wheeler of the pre-funeral fling, pointing to the contrast between Abshire's "hysterical" crying at the scene of his wife's death and the sexual encounter so soon thereafter.

"It goes to the heart," Wheeler said, "of whether a husband could kill his wife."

Judge Bouton, however, rejected the prosecution's argument and ruled Morris' testimony inadmissible, citing case law that requires that such behavior would have had to occur during Abshire's marriage to Justine in order to be introduced to the jury.

That ruling was not the only blow Judge Bouton dealt the prosecution. Earlier in the trial, Wheeler and Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Rick Moore introduced evidence of Abshire's connection to a Ford Expedition stolen from a nearby dealership a few days before Justine's November 3, 2006, death.

Abshire, several witnesses revealed, had visited the lot at least twice to look at that vehicle, and during one of those visits, the key went missing. Over the night of October 28-29, 2006, the SUV was stolen, only to turn up two weeks later on November 11 in a storage unit a mile and a half from Taylorsville Road, where Abshire reported finding Justine's body in what initially appeared to be a hit and run.

When it was recovered, the Expedition was missing its back seat, floor mats, and running boards. Fewer than 50 miles had been added to the odometer, and the ignition showed no signs of tampering, a scenario, prosecutors said, that suggested that whoever took it used the missing key and didn't go far.

The prosecution returned to the Expedition topic today, introducing new testimony from Virginia State Police Special Agent Mike Jones, who revealed that Abshire admitted during an interview to visiting that same storage facility on Toms Road sometime in the fall of 2006 before Justine's death.

"Nothing that I've heard has changed my view whatsoever," Bouton said of his ruling at the conclusion of the Commonwealth's late-afternoon motion, adding that "the only plausible way to make this argument is to imply that the defendant was involved in stealing."

The lack of any physical evidence tying Justine to the vehicle, the judge explained, renders the evidence inadmissible.

After six days of testimony, the Commonwealth rested at 4:50pm before making these motions. Bouton also denied a defense motion to dismiss the case, reeling off a litany of evidence in support of his decision, including evidence that Abshire was the last one to see Justine alive and the first one to see her dead, the couple's reported financial woes, the potential financial gain for Abshire, his conflicting accounts of events of the night in question, and the fact that there is no evidence to support the notion of a hit-and-run or stranger abduction.

4 comments

I think the jurors have heard enough evidence to show that Eric was not a loving, monogamous, family man. I'd like to read the case law that Bouton refers to, although I have to take his word that it is on point and primary authority. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that he lied about what happened that night. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence indicating he was involved in the murder. Even some evidence indicating he had planned this, although how far in advance is hard to say. Simply getting the ins. policies is not enough to show proof that he was planning to kill her.

But what is lacking is hard evidence that he planned and carried out the murder. Even though I think all the jurors think he participated in a murder, it only takes one to believe not enough evidence has been given to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed premeditated murder.

No conviction probably wouldn't help Ms. Wheeler's reelection prospects which is two weeks after the verdict.

Equalizer76 October 22nd, 2011 | 8:41am

Since the whole case is based on circumstancial evidence everything pretaining to the case should be allowed. He did forge her name, he did attempt or did obtain insurance for financial gain. His actions do imply he planned to murder her BEFORE he ever married her. What he did is PREMEDITATED MURDER PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.
This may turn out a Virginia O.J.Simpson case. Some legal jergon that allows him to walk free.
Mrs Wheeler is doing a great job and seems to try to get everything she can. The Judge acts a bit strange but seems to stay on top of everything. I guess its up to the 12 members of the jury to voice the verdict, GUILTY or NOT GUILTY.
He is a good con & if he takes the stand he will have them all crying, wanting to take him home with them....the younger women wanting him for themselves and the older women wanting to play momma to him. He does have a way with women...go knock em dead Eric.....aha....wrong choice of words or is it?????

JAB October 24th, 2011 | 5:24pm

Before some smart ass points it out to me, I know you can't tell guilt or innocence from a photo. However, look at Justine's eyes and tell me she didn't know something was very, very wrong. She was a beautiful, sweet person from all accounts. It is a shame she ever met this monster.